Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
be interesting, though. if vice president biden runs, which has been speculated about, there will be a real conundrum, and i think there's a conundrum for the democratic establishment if secretary clinton goes there. a lot of people feel that she would really be able to get the support of the big democratic donors and traditional parts of democratic party but not be able to bring along new parts of obama coalition, hence the gay marriage sticking point. 2016 is definitely wide open. hillary clinton was referred to me recently by an operative on the democratic side, very involved in the early jockeying says she's the 800-pound gorilla. if she goes the field is not necessarily hers for the taking, but she would have a significant advantage coming into the race. >> when the former president is asked if his wife will run, he always says he has no idea. is there any indication behind the scenes that she's either annoyed, flattered or feels pressure as so many people -- the election wasn't even over, and everyone had their list of republicans running. of course, her name has always been there for
on budget and policy priorities and a former economist for vice president joe biden. jared, if i might start with you, speaker boehner says he put forward a middle ground proposal. no tax increases for the healthiest of americahealthy est of americans, yet he wants to rage the eligibility of medicare and he wants to slash billions from every program. if that's a middle ground proposal, i would rather have the paul ryan budget but maybe they're the same thing. >> i was thinking what does the right side of the spectrum look like. you're absolutely right. if you look at the top lines here, which is all we have really, jay carney is right. there are no details here. the first thing you have that should really raise eyebrows is they talk about $800 billion in new revenues from unspecified loophole closures. where have we heard that before? i heard in your introduction references to the romney/ryan campaign. i mean, that didn't work in the context of a campaign. with the fiscal cliff three weeks away, it's absolutely crazy to be talking at that level of nonspecificity. and then, yes, you're right.
of the good things about a choice when you had bill clinton pick al gore, when you had obama pick biden even when you had bush and cheney, they all, in their own way had their chemistry. but they also bring something to a ticket. or more important they do no harm. so they don't change the their at this. they don't change the essence of the message. so when cheney was picked, people might have said is he picking his daddy's friend or someone so old to help him. those are -- that could slap down a candidate but it doesn't change your whole thrust of your main selling point which was for romney, i could be a better steward of the economy than obama. so when -- you evaluate what happened yes so it was a great chemistry. >> bill: right. but politically -- again, it changed the focus of the campaign and then what did -- what did paul ryan bring? he didn't bring wisconsin. so you ended up with two candidates. had born in or lived in and paul ryan couldn't deliver either. >> here's the other thing. i think this is why these
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3